No More Heroes

[phantasm]

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/28/547184-scotland_wallace4_large.gif
Heroes fight injustice.
If the injustice is large, people join them in the fight.
This will never happen again.
If you see injustice in the world and attempt to fight it today, you will not find anyone willing to join you.
It will be a battle that you fight alone, and maybe with a few close friends.

William Wallace from braveheart in today's world, would never have anyone on his side, he would be a small blip easily destroyed by not wanting to disturb the comfort of the system.

I just watched a movie called Ned Kelly on hulu, comparing him to william wallace in braveheart the story is similiar, and he could have been a huge hero, but no one joined his fight.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/93514/ned-kelly

So, enjoy your lives as slaves to the status quo and die knowing that there will never again be any heroes to come to your rescue.
Because, if they did, you would just ignore them and continue with life as usual.

[4a6c1]

Nice. An actor in blue paint.

This is a real hero. And he faught injustice. RIP Wilson.

http://www.iraqwarheroes.org/photos28/leron_wilson001.jpg

[phantasm]

Wilson might be a possible hero. Please fill in the details, what injustice was he fighting, how many people were with him in his cause etc...

[4a6c1]

The point I am making to you by posting a picture of Wilson is this...

I saw your question: "If heroes arise, will people even follow them?" and I raise another question, very relevant, "Do we as a society know what heroism is?"

You may percieve injustice while another may only feel inconveniance. I assert that heroism is not to fight injustice, but to serve with the willingness to give all.

Mel Gibson, though a cool guy, as he is in that picture is definately not a hero. He is playing a hero and you posting that picture to define heroism stands to prove my point. We as a society recognize heroism as synthetic because we are synthetic. You for instance seem to relate to Braveheart better than you do to a picture of an fallen American Soldier. Now imagine you are hundreds of thousands of people with that perspective. Where does that leave our military? I see a problem and stand to reason that we are lucky your perspective is in the minority.

[TheEschaton]

I assert that heroism is not to fight injustice, but to serve with the willingness to give all.

This leaves open the possibility that heroism can be bad, because one can "serve with the willingness to give all" to unjust, evil causes....

...or unjustified, unnecessary causes.

In that case, what is the point of such heroism? That a person died in a noble fashion for a wrong cause? This is the psychological question of both Vietnam and Iraq, where our soldiers are asked to do something unjustified, and in order for them to justify it, their actions are dubbed "heroic," while those who didn't serve and question the justification suddenly become traitors and pussies.

I somewhat agree with the OP, heroism requires justice, or literally, a just cause.

-TheE-

[Gan]

I think many people perform heroic deeds; however, I really have not found someone to be considered truly heroic in everything they do.

I believe a hero not only does heroic things but lives heroically. Too many folks try to portray themselves as heroic on the outside but are much less so when we see how they live on the inside.

[Ashliana]

Opening this thread and seeing Mel Gibson, and not Travis Touchdown.. sucks.

[Xanator]

This leaves open the possibility that heroism can be bad, because one can "serve with the willingness to give all" to unjust, evil causes....

...or unjustified, unnecessary causes.

In that case, what is the point of such heroism? That a person died in a noble fashion for a wrong cause? This is the psychological question of both Vietnam and Iraq, where our soldiers are asked to do something unjustified, and in order for them to justify it, their actions are dubbed "heroic," while those who didn't serve and question the justification suddenly become traitors and pussies.

I somewhat agree with the OP, heroism requires justice, or literally, a just cause.

-TheE-

So that also opens the discussion to the issue of perspective, as a cause that's "unjustified" or "unnecessary" to you and me might not be to someone else. Take William Wallace, if he's the OP's definition of a hero. Wallace led Scottish resistance during the early stages of their wars for independence (this after Scotland engaged in secret negotiations with France to aid in an invasion of England). I think it very likely that the English didn't feel they were wrong in a) defending themselves from the threat of invasion or b) protecting their claim to Scotland, which they had officially established (nobly or not) a few years prior when the King was asked to moderate claims between competitors for Scotland's throne.

It has been said that Wallace was a petty criminal early in life and it's pretty widely accepted that he condoned and even engaged in the mutilation of his fallen enemies. He was a hero of Scotland, for sure, but how do you suppose the English felt about him? As time has progressed, England has come to be perceived as the bad guy in this conflict. Wallace was betrayed and turned over to England by a Scottish knight loyal to the English King. Was that knight a hero or a traitor?

[TheEschaton]

Well, what justice is, is something that philosophy and theology have been studying for millenia.

If you agree with Just War Theory, then neither Vietnam or the current Iraq war were "just wars".

-TheE-

[LMingrone]

Time to go watch Band of Brothers again. Yeah it's a dramatic movie, but I've read every book that's been published from all of the soldiers...and those guys are examples of heroes.

[phantasm]

Here's a possible list of attribute for a hero.

(1) See's injustice being done to a segment of society
(2) Calls other people to join him in a fight against the injustice
(3) Successfully changes the social structure removing or mitigating the injustice
(4) Dedicates his life to the fight/possibly even dies.


List of American heroes(1909-2009):
Martin Luther King

[Gan]

he⋅ro 
–noun, plural -roes; for 5 also -ros.
1.a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.

2.a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.

3.the principal male character in a story, play, film, etc.

4.Classical Mythology. a.a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity.b.(in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.c.(in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod.

5.hero sandwich. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hero+sandwich&db=luna)

6.the bread or roll used in making a hero sandwich.


I wonder if MLK would have made a good sandwich?

[4a6c1]

This leaves open the possibility that heroism can be bad, because one can "serve with the willingness to give all" to unjust, evil causes....

...or unjustified, unnecessary causes.

-TheE-

One persons hero is anothers guerilla insurgent? I dont completely disagree with you on this. I wont debate causes. My position is clear, obviously. Since I signed a contract to support my position. :)

I will clarify my point and state it again.

Phantasm made this thread in response to a post I made in the "Schoolchildren singing to Obama?!" Thread. If not, big coincidence.

Anyhoo, over there I was commenting on how popularity does not equal heroism and I was (still am) baffled as to how a celebrity (Obama) who has done nothing is merited heroic ballads in his honor.

?!

[phantasm]

Not in response to the other thread.
It was created on a whim last night after watching a movie and contrasting the hero of that movie with the hero in braveheart.

[Xanator]

Here's a possible list of attribute for a hero.

(1) See's injustice being done to a segment of society
(2) Calls other people to join him in a fight against the injustice
(3) Successfully changes the social structure removing or mitigating the injustice
(4) Dedicates his life to the fight/possibly even dies.


List of American heroes(1909-2009):
Martin Luther King

You think the hero has to win? Carrying on the Braveheart analogy, William Wallace didn't win. He got hanged, drawn, and quartered. The ideals he was fighting for weren't realized until some 20 years later, and then only for a few years before a second war broke out.

You also have an idea that heroes have to matter on a grand scale to a large number of people, and I don't agree with that, either. See unsung heroes, "My hero," etc.

And as far as people who are "heroic in everything they do," MLK was a plagiarist, which doesn't entirely count for "brave deeds or noble qualities." I don't personally feel that this detracts one tiny little bit from his heroic acts or his lasting impact on all of our lives. Wallace, as previously mentioned, allowed his men to mutilate the corpses of their defeated enemies. It's widely held that he fashioned the skin of an English official into a swordbelt for himself. Being a perfect person shouldn't be a prerequisite for heroism. Maybe Jesus?

[Latrinsorm]

Heroes fight injustice.
If the injustice is large, people join them in the fight.
This will never happen again.
If you see injustice in the world and attempt to fight it today, you will not find anyone willing to join you.
It will be a battle that you fight alone, and maybe with a few close friends.If you look at actual history, no revolution (just or otherwise) has comprised more than one in twenty people of the relevant country or group. MLK's biggest marches involved maybe 1 out of a thousand people. Wallace had maybe 5,000 men following him out of a population of a million.

That all aside, if you don't see people fighting injustice today, you aren't looking very hard.

[4a6c1]

Not in response to the other thread.
It was created on a whim last night after watching a movie and contrasting the hero of that movie with the hero in braveheart.

You have....impecable timing.

11:24 in the other thread:


Where did reality go?

Seriously, maybe I'm the wrong plastic barbie to be asking this but are we really such a synthetic culture that this man has merited himself worthy of schoolchildren singing about him on the basis of his popularity alone? It is a very basic argument.... Heroism vs. Stardom, do we know the difference?

In the age of celebrity politicians and tabloid worship I needed a little faith in humanity and looked up a quote from an old hero of mine.

"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others at whatever cost."

^Arthur Ashe, not a hero because of his skin or celebrity status.

[Back]

I’ve always defined hero as “one crazy ass m’er f’er”.

[Gelston]

Wilson might be a possible hero. Please fill in the details, what injustice was he fighting, how many people were with him in his cause etc...

If you don't think the men and women that fight and die for your country are not heroes, you are fucking retarded. If you don't think the police that keep you safe at night are not heroes, you are retarded. If you don't think the firemen that risk their lives to put out fires and rescue people from burning buildings are not heroes, you are retarded.

Might I also mention the people that take their time to volunteer for big brother/big sister. The people who slave away in homeless shelters. The social workers that spend LONG hours trying to look out for the welfare of mistreated and neglected children.

There are plenty of heroes out there. The best ones are the ones that do their job without any care of recognition.

[StrayRogue]

The real William Wallace was not a hero.

[Sweets]

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/28/547184-scotland_wallace4_large.gif
Heroes fight injustice.
If the injustice is large, people join them in the fight.
This will never happen again.
If you see injustice in the world and attempt to fight it today, you will not find anyone willing to join you.
It will be a battle that you fight alone, and maybe with a few close friends.

William Wallace from braveheart in today's world, would never have anyone on his side, he would be a small blip easily destroyed by not wanting to disturb the comfort of the system.

I just watched a movie called Ned Kelly on hulu, comparing him to william wallace in braveheart the story is similiar, and he could have been a huge hero, but no one joined his fight.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/93514/ned-kelly

So, enjoy your lives as slaves to the status quo and die knowing that there will never again be any heroes to come to your rescue.
Because, if they did, you would just ignore them and continue with life as usual.


Wow, hollywood really brain washed someone. Ick. As other people have pointed out, heros surround us. Whether they do something as mundane as make a meal for someone homeless or run into a burning building. Aren't you American? Did 9/11 not show you the heroism of anyone? Millions of people came together all around the world that day to help the suffering.

What the hell are you talking about, slaves? You just used a hollywoodized icon you complete and total moron! Do you know anything about Wallace other than what that movie depicted? Whine about no heros in your own tragic life. Mine is full of them and I appreciate everything they do. Will a movie be made about their lives so morons like yourself will think to idolize them? More than likely no. Thank goodness. Movies always get the facts wrong for ratings.

[phantasm]

So, now days heroe's make meals for the homeless?

[Killer Kitten]

This is a hero: http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/images/mother_teresa.jpg

Born: August 26, 1910
Died: September 5, 1997
Achievements: Started Missionaries of Charity in 1950; received Nobel Prize for Peace in 1979; received Bharat Ratna in 1980.

Mother Teresa was one of the great servants of humanity. She was an Albanian Catholic nun who came to India and founded the Missionaries of Charity in Kolkata. Her selfless work among the poverty-stricken people of Kolkata (Calcutta) is an inspiration for people all over the world and she was honored with Nobel Prize for her work.

Mother Teresa's original name was Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu. She was born on August 27, 1910 in Skopje, Macedonia. Her father was a successful merchant and she was youngest of the three siblings. At the age of 12, she decided that she wanted to be a missionary and spread the love of Christ. At the age of 18 she left her parental home in Skopje and joined the Sisters of Loreto, an Irish community of nuns with missions in India.

After a few months of training at the Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Dublin Mother Teresa came to India. On May 24, 1931, she took her initial vows as a nun. From 1931 to 1948, Mother Teresa taught geography and catechism at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta. However, the prevailing poverty in Calcutta had a deep impact on Mother Teresa's mind and in 1948, she received permission from her superiors to leave the convent school and devote herself to working among the poorest of the poor in the slums of Calcutta.

After a short course with the Medical Mission Sisters in Patna, she returned to Calcutta and found temporary lodging with the Little Sisters of the Poor. She started an open-air school for homeless children. Soon she was joined by voluntary helpers, and she received financial support from church organizations and the municipal authorities. On October 7, 1950, Mother Teresa received permission from the Vatican to start her own order. Vatican originally labeled the order as the Diocesan Congregation of the Calcutta Diocese, and it later came to known as the "Missionaries of Charity". The primary task of the Missionaries of Charity was to take care of those persons who nobody was prepared to look after.

The Missionaries of Charity, which began as a small Order with 12 members in Calcutta, today has more than 4,000 nuns running orphanages, AIDS hospices, charity centres worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless and victims of floods, epidemics and famine in Asia, Africa, Latin America, North America, Poland, and Australia. In 1965, by granting a Decree of Praise, Pope Paul VI granted Mother Teresa permission to expand her order to other countries. The order's first house outside India was in Venezuela. Presently, the "Missionaries of Charity" has presence in more than 100 countries.

Mother Teresa's work has been recognised and acclaimed throughout the world and she has received a number of awards and distinctions. These include the Pope John XXIII Peace Prize (1971), Nehru Prize for Promotion of International Peace & Understanding (1972), Balzan Prize (1978), Nobel Peace Prize (1979) and Bharat Ratna (1980).

On March 13, 1997, Mother Teresa stepped down from the head of Missionaries of Charity and died on September 5, 1997, just 9 days after her 87th birthday. Following Mother Teresa's death, the Holy See began the process of beatification, the second step towards possible canonization, or sainthood. This process requires the documentation of a miracle performed from the intercession of Mother Teresa. In 2002, the Vatican recognized as a miracle the healing of a tumor in the abdomen of an Indian woman, Monica Besra, following the application of a locket containing Teresa's picture. Monica Besra said that a beam of light emanated from the picture, curing the cancerous tumor. Mother Teresa was formally beatified by Pope John Paul II on October 19, 2003 with the title Blessed Teresa of Calcutta. A second miracle is required for her to proceed to canonization.

[Killer Kitten]

Another hero: http://thebeat.iloveny.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/harriet_tubman.jpg

Reverently called "Moses" by the hundreds of slaves she helped to freedom and the thousands of others she inspired, Harriet Tubman became the most famous leader of the Underground Railroad to aid slaves escaping to free states or Canada.
Born into slavery in Bucktown, Maryland, Tubman escaped her own chains in 1849 to find safe haven in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She did so through the underground railroad, an elaborate and secret series of houses, tunnels, and roads set up by abolitionists and former slaves. "When I found I had crossed the [Mason-Dixon] line, I looked at my hands to see if I were the same person, " Tubman later wrote. ". . . the sun came like gold through the tree and over the field and I felt like I was in heaven." She would spend the rest of her life helping other slaves escape to freedom.
Her early life as a slave had been filled with abuse; at the age of 13, when she attempted to save another slave from punishment, she was struck in the head with a two-pound iron weight. She would suffer periodic blackouts from the injury for the rest of her life.
After her escape, Tubman worked as a maid in Philadelphia and joined the large and active abolitionist group in the city. In 1850, after Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act, making it illegal to help a runaway slave, Tubman decided to join the Underground Railroad. Her first expedition took place in 1851, when she managed to thread her way through the backwoods to Baltimore and return to the North with her sister and her sister's children. From that time until the onset of the Civil War, Tubman traveled to the South about 18 times and helped close to 300 slaves escape. In 1857, Tubman led her parents to freedom in Auburn, New York, which became her home as well.
Tubman was never caught and never lost a slave to the Southern militia, and as her reputation grew, so too did the desire among Southerners to put a stop to her activities; rewards for her capture once totaled about $40,000. During the Civil War, Tubman served as a nurse, scout, and sometime-spy for the Union army, mainly in South Carolina. She also took part in a military campaign that resulted in the rescue of 756 slaves and destroyed millions of dollars' worth of enemy property.
After the war, Tubman returned to Auburn and continued her involvement in social issues, including the women's rights movement. In 1908, she established a home in Auburn for elderly and indigent blacks that later became known as the Harriet Tubman Home. She died on March 10, 1913, at the approximate age of 93.

[TheEschaton]

Did 9/11 not show you the heroism of anyone?

LOL.

I saw people, who in the face of danger, were very brave. But as someone mentioned earlier, being a hero means living heroic. KK's examples are much more appropriate.

Which brings us to another conversation: ARe our lives now so fragmented and depersonalized that things we should already be doing, like saving those in danger and feeding the homeless, have suddenly become the actions of heroes?

-TheE-

[Killer Kitten]

And because I have to include at least one animal person...
http://www.codyjackson.com/page3/files/carousel_image_0_1.jpg

Henry Bergh (August 29, 1811-March 12, 1888) was the founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and was instrumental in the founding of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He was the first to successfully challenge the prevailing view that both animals and children were property with no rights of their own. Because of him, it is now accepted that abuse of animals and children is an offense to both human sensibility and established law.
Henry was born to wealth in New York City. His parents were Elizabeth Ivers and Christian Bergh, a ship builder who was for a time employed by the government. He attended Columbia College in New York, but did not complete a degree. Instead he traveled to Europe, 1831-36, where he dabbled in the arts and attempted a career in writing. In 1836 he married Catherine Matilda (née Taylor). Henry and his brother, Christian Jr., took over the family business upon the retirement of their father. After his father's death in 1843, Henry cashed in his inheritance, became a man of privileged leisure, and moved with his wife to Europe, where he wrote several unsuccessful plays.

In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln appointed him to the American Legation at the court of Czar Alexander II in Russia. While in Russia, Bergh witnessed commonplace abuse of animals. His experience in Russia, and related incidents in other European countries, heightened Bergh's sensitivity and compassion. In 1865, en route back to the United States, Bergh stopped in London to consult with the Earl of Harrowby, president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Animals were routinely abused and neglected in America at the time. Horses, a major source of conveyance, were starved, denied regular watering, beaten, and no concessions were made them for extremes of weather. Mules and horses were typically released into the streets to starve after judged no longer fit for service. Domestic animals were often not given regular food or shelter and were subject to physical abuse. Dogfights, cockfights, and bear-baiting were common forms of entertainment.

Bergh used his wealth and prestige to raise public awareness of the suffering of animals and to enlist support from powerful New York businessmen, politicians, and religious leaders in the founding of the ASPCA. Among these was his minister, Henry Whitney Bellows of the First Congregational Church of New York City (now the Unitarian Church of All Souls). In 1866 Bergh gave a lecture at Clinton Hall in New York citing statistics and examples relating to animal abuse. This was the inception of the American Society. Laws granting a charter for the society and punishing cruelty to animals were passed by the State of New York two months later. When asked about the founding of the ASPCA, Bergh commented, "This is a matter purely of conscience; it has no perplexing side issues. It is a moral question in all its aspects."

Bergh, realizing that the ASPCA could not be run as a solely male organization, asked Bellows to provide names of women as potential patrons. This increased Unitarian support for his work. On the other hand, because of the mistreatment and mishandling of animals in P. T. Barnum's circus acts, Bergh initially had an adversarial relationship with the Universalist showman. Nevertheless Bergh eventually won Barnum over to the cause.

President of the ASPCA from 1866 until his death, Bergh daily intervened on behalf of mistreated animals on the streets of New York. Wearing a special badge, he arrested and prosecuted violators of the state anti-cruelty laws. An early entry in the ASPCA annals: "New York City, April 1866: The driver of a cart laden with coal is whipping his horse. Passersby . . . stop to gawk not so much at the weak, emaciated equine, but at the tall man, elegant in top hat and spats, who is explaining to the driver that it is now against the law to beat one's animal. Thus, America first encounters 'The Great Meddler.'"

With the help of his legal counsel, Elbridge Gerry, Bergh got the federal government to ban cruelty to animals used for interstate transportation. He also made lecture tours outside New York State, which inspired the foundation of a number of local anti-cruelty societies.

Bergh once noted that "Mercy to animals means mercy to mankind." This idea led him to work for better conditions for humans as well. Through the intervention of Methodist mission worker, Etta Angell Wheeler, he was introduced to the suffering of a child, Mary Ellen Wilson. Mary Ellen had endured extreme physical and mental abuse in her foster home. Friends of Wheeler suggested that she seek Bergh's assistance and support. Claiming at the court hearing that his advocacy was "that of a human citizen," he was instrumental removing Wilson from her abusive home. In New York City in 1875 he and Gerry co-founded the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

After long years of witness and action against cruelty, Bergh died in 1888. He is buried in Green Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York. In extending concern for all living beings, Bergh anticipated the Seventh Principle of the Unitarian Universalist Association: "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

[Killer Kitten]

Which brings us to another conversation: ARe our lives now so fragmented and depersonalized that things we should already be doing, like saving those in danger and feeding the homeless, have suddenly become the actions of heroes?

-TheE-

Unfortunately, I think they have, but to a certain extent that has pretty much always been the case. Most people will help a friend or a neighbor or a family member, as long as it doesn't leave them too inconvenienced, but how many stop to help a stranger? Especially if stopping to help may cost them time or money, or even get their hands/clothes dirty.

A lot of this is because we have been trained that way, and because experience has taught us it is safer to remain uninvolved. Step in when you see a man hitting a woman on the street and the odds are both of them will turn on you. Try stopping a fight and generally you're the one who ends up in the emergency room with stab wounds.

Often in animal rescue people see a stray animal and feel sorry for it, but when told that in order to save it they have to become more involved (house it temporarily, get it veterinary care, feed it, transport it) it suddenly becomes "not my pet, not my problem".

I think most people would like to help a distressed person or animal, as long as it doesn't cost them anything to do so. It's when they have to get dirty or share their resources or work at resolving the problem - that's when they hesitate.

The heroes of this world are the Harriet Tubmans, who risk everything, the Mother Theresas, who give everything, the Henry Berghs, who carry the courage of their convictions in the face of ridicule and hostility.

[Sweets]

Yes, I'll concede KK's has true heros listed. I should say the regular folks are heros to me because, yes, we are selfish society as a whole and those that do the little things do stand out. It's unfortunate but true. It's not sensational but does it make it any less heroic? I don't know, seems to be going a bit more subjective. I do find phantasms version leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Is it more tragic that I find regular folk doing swell things heros? Perhaps.

[TheEschaton]

Unfortunately, I think they have, but to a certain extent that has pretty much always been the case.

But it hasn't. This is a very Western, 20th century thing.

[Killer Kitten]

Yes, I'll concede KK's has true heros listed. I should say the regular folks are heros to me because, yes, we are selfish society as a whole and those that do the little things do stand out. It's unfortunate but true. It's not sensational but does it make it any less heroic? I don't know, seems to be going a bit more subjective. I do find phantasms version leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Is it more tragic that I find regular folk doing swell things heros? Perhaps.

Actually, you're right. When regular people do unselfish/brave things they are heros.
In giving my examples I was thinking more of the "larger than life" kinds of heros who live their whole lives as heros, but that certainly doesn't mean that the guy volunteering at the soup kitchen or the kid that returns a wallet with contents intact aren't heros either.

[TheEschaton]

Those are things people should ALWAYS do! That should be second nature, not heroic!

[Back]

My biggest hero...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__nAd50xTIYs/SiBCrk6ibJI/AAAAAAAAA8Q/eVMmSJRKN8Y/s400/StanLee.jpg

[Sweets]

Those are things people should ALWAYS do! That should be second nature, not heroic!

You're right, it should just be the way it is but it isn't. Not everyone will do what's decent. Not everyone will lead a revolution or cure cancer either. There are spectacular heros and then there are the everyday ones. Like I said, seems subjective. I still have a problem with hollywood heros though. It's the snob in me.

[Latrinsorm]

ARe our lives now so fragmented and depersonalized that things we should already be doing, like saving those in danger and feeding the homeless, have suddenly become the actions of heroes?Putting yourself in mortal danger to save someone else's life has always been and will always be heroic. You seem to be conflating "heroic" and "commendable".